UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4778
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS TORRES, a/k/a Sombra,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00107-RJC-DLH-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Ross H. Richardson, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Ann Magee Thompkins, United States Attorney, Kevin
Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Torres pled guilty to robbery affecting
interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), and
possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006).
The district court sentenced him to a total of 120 months
imprisonment. Torres’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in
counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether Torres’ sentence was reasonable. Torres was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We have reviewed Torres’ sentence and conclude that it
was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed was
reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);
see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010).
The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in
sentencing Torres, appropriately treated the Sentencing
Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the
applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors in light of Torres’ individual
characteristics and history. We conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen
sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491
2
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of
reasonableness to within Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Torres, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Torres requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Torres. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3